Do you think that God once was a man?

[Vanhin]

I don't think God was once a man. If he was and i found that out i would be very surprised. While Reorganized Latter Day Saints accept the First Vision we don't interpret it as saying Joseph Smith saw the Father with a body. I figure God the Father either assumed form for the occasion, or was a personage of spirit.

Thanks Dale, that's interesting. How do you guys understand/interpret D&C 130:22?

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Vanhin

[ruthiechan]

Are the Doctrine and Covenants even a part of your RLDS scriptures, Dale?

[Dr T]

Not mine Ruthie-no need to reconcile that verse.

[ztodd]

My Community of Christ/RLDS feels the Father is not an exalted man. But we do feel god the Son was that God and is a resurrected man. Hosea 11:9 which i think you are referring to has been used to say Jesus can't be God. To me all it says is he denied being a mortal man. He wasn't saying he could not become a man as that would conflict with Matthew 1:23. Jesus is God with us.

Can Jesus as God still claim as God claim as much as he did back then he was not man? He denies being man he doesn't say he can't be a man. Or did when he took upon his body giving up his status of being a spirit without a body lose his right to say that?(Luke 24:39) If he can still say that then i reasoned God the Father could be an exalted man and claim the same thing.

God can say whatever He wants if you ask me. :) It's up to us to understand what he means.

We can't ever arrive fully at the complete truth by debating in human language. We can get much closer by staying close to the Spirit of Truth when we study and learn and listening for that still small voice.

[ztodd]

And we can all agree that God's word would supercede that of Joseph Smith and President Snow?

This is honestly what makes me question some of the LDS teachings. I feel like they are in direct contradiciton with what the Bible tells us, and when questioning this it is always met with "Well the Bible actually meant such and such" or the like. Basically saying the Bible is wrong, or misunderstood, and that the words of Man are right. That someone 3000 years later can better explain to us what was happening, than the men in the Bibles first hand accounts of it. Some things in the Bible are blatantly clear - and changing something as simple as "I am not Man" to fit man's ideas just does not seem right.

Just my take on things..

Hi Shell- I'm glad you have such a love and dedication to the bible. But think of where the bible comes from, and then think of what the LDS position is about our prophets. We believe our prophets had equal authority with the prophets who wrote the bible, so our modern prophets have every right to clarify points in the bible that we don't understand. We value their words very highly because they speak with God for us, and communicate to us in our own modern language. No translation from ancient hebrew is necessary. We also love and are dedicated to the bible and hold it to be the word of God, but we need help understanding it sometimes.

With that passage, it's like if you were to say, "I'm not a girl, I am a woman." Well, you are a girl, but I know what you would mean by that. It's just semantics. To understand passages like this it sure helps to have modern prophets to be able to clarify doctrines such as this, and we can verify the truth of it for ourselves through our own personal prayer and listening to the spirit.

[ztodd]

Some of us are ready for meat.

Lol... I'm sorry, that was just kind of funny when I read that.

That's cool though if you feel you're ready to dive in to certain mysteries. I don't feel ready yet. I'm still trying to get a good grasp on faith, repentance, charity, etc.

Heb. 5: 12

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

[Guest tomk]

Lol... I'm sorry, that was just kind of funny when I read that.

That's cool though if you feel you're ready to dive in to certain mysteries. I don't feel ready yet. I'm still trying to get a good grasp on faith, repentance, charity, etc.

Heb. 5: 12

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

I apologize if that came-off a bit arrogant. I didn't mean it to be.

By "mysteries" or being ready for "meat" (vs milk) I don't necessarily mean "book learning" -- I mean those things which are between God and ourselves, alone. The things which are experiential. That which is before us in scripture ALREADY -- if we only had "eyes to see" and "ears to hear."

I believe when I originally made that statement, is was in response to some comments by others that we should not speculate here in these forums, that it is somehow "bad" for new converts. It may be, but that is a matter of opinion, and nobody in these forums is qualified to make that call, or to censor me or anyone else for speculating. They simply are not qualified to judge me or my intentions.